Ed Miliband may be currently enduring a headache over goings-on in Scotland. But, as a report launched today shows, even if the Labour leader resolves the issues exposed in Falkirk, his long-term problems will come from south of the border, and in particular how he deals with the question of Englishness.

The left in Britain has traditionally seen English nationalism as "a dark and chauvinistic force best kept under wraps", in the words of the IPPR thinktank's study England and Its Two Unions. But Englishness is a political force on the rise, and it will not go away.

Hostility to the European Union is greater in England – where 50% wish to leave – than in Scotland, where 53% want to stay. The English are also more hostile to immigration than those in Scotland or Wales. This outlook is well represented by Ukip, which might well be described as an English nationalist party, favouring as it does an English parliament. Ukip supporters are also far more likely than those of other parties to describe themselves as "English" rather than "British".

Labour has never succeeded in winning an enduring parliamentary majority without winning a majority of seats in England. When dependent on the Scottish vote – as in 1950, 1964 and 1974 – Labour had either a majority in single figures or no majority at all.

The political system has, however, altered greatly since 1974. Labour is now more dominant in Scotland and Wales – holding 67 seats to nine for the Conservatives – and, on current boundaries, could potentially win an overall majority on about 35% of the vote.

But it is possible that, in 2015, Labour could be dependent on Scotland and Wales for an overall majority. This would again raise the question first highlighted by Tam Dalyell, the former MP for West Lothian, which asks why Scottish MPs should vote on domestic English matters, such as health and education, which in Scotland are the responsibility of the Scottish parliament.

The Tory answer is English votes for English laws. But this is incompatible with cabinet government since it would mean two different administrations: Labour for foreign affairs, defence and economic policy; Tory for health, education and housing. That would destroy the principle of collective responsibility by which a government stands or falls on all of its policies, not just a selection of them. Politically, English votes for English laws would cripple a Labour government. A government unable to legislate on health, education or housing would hardly be worth electing.

Nevertheless, Conservatives might use Dalyell's "West Lothian question" to attack the legitimacy of a Labour government. So how can Labour come to terms with the rising tide of Englishness?

A key English concern is that Scotland and Wales benefit in the distribution of political funds because of the political weight of their devolved bodies. London can compete through the political clout of the mayor. But the great conurbations of the north and Midlands have rejected directly elected mayors.

Last month Merrick Cockell, the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, called for a minister and a government department for England to take England's side in negotiations with the devolved nations for funds. That could be compatible with cabinet government and collective responsibility.

However, Labour also needs to understand the legitimate concerns of the English on immigration and the EU. That means supporting a referendum and convincing the English of Britain's European destiny; and seeking repatriation of powers to control immigration within the EU. The treaty of Rome, after all, was agreed in 1957 between six member states with roughly equal incomes per head. It did not envisage the unrestricted immigration of 500 million people from 28 member states, in some of which income per head is around one quarter of that in Britain.

Labour is a unionist party – the only major party with substantial representation in Scotland, Wales and England. It will campaign hard against Scot independence. But it needs to campaign equally hard to ensure that the unionist slogan "Better together" works as well for England as it does for Scotland and Wales.